I've been in the IT industry since the time of the dinosaurs (ICL anyone?). I've written books about the Internet and networking, consulted for all sorts of companies, and been a contributor and columnist for Network World for 18 years (check out my Backspin and Gearhead columns). I created and co-founded Netratings (now wholly owned by Nielsen) and have CTO'ed for a couple of startups. I live in Ventura, CA. I do not surf.

Believing in Cold Fusion and the E-Cat

So, it turns out that any concerns you might have had over Harold Camping’s prediction that the world would end on October 21, can now be put aside: The world is still here (as far as I can determine) and humanity is still busy going about its evil ways which involve consuming energy at a staggering rate … and that leads me nicely to this week’s revisiting of the topic of my blog posting two weeks ago, “Hello Cheap Energy, Hello Brave New World“.

As I discussed in that posting, an inventor by the name of Andrea Rossi has developed what he claims to be a simple system for generating what would be, essentially, endless and incredibly cheap energy.

On October 28th the biggest test of Rossi’s system, which is called the E-Cat, was conducted in Italy and some results were made public which I’ll discuss in a moment.

Before that I do, let me give you a quick refresh: The E-Cat, which is short for “Energy Catalyzer”, is claimed to produce a “Low Energy Nuclear Reaction” or LENR. LENR is another name for “cold fusion” or CF (LENR is considered a more acceptable term than CF which was discredited after two world-class researchers, Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons, announced that they had a working cold fusion system but which, alas, no one could duplicate).

Allow me to digress for a moment to ask all of you who sent me messages in tones ranging from polite through to downright rude asserting that cold fusion has actually been successfully duplicated: If an experiment that demonstrates cold fusion has really been replicated in the real world by real scientists then why would the scientific community ignore something so profound? Everyone agrees that cold fusion would be a game changer and in itself would be a hugely important scientific discovery so why would anyone in the scientific community ignore an important, successful, and replicable experiment?

Rossi’s E-Cat is claimed to use a secret catalyst to react hydrogen with nickel and, in the process, transmute the nickel into copper producing considerable heat. Whether this reaction works or not and if it does, exactly how it works, has been enormously contentious and the subject of numerous learned and amateur debates.

Rossi has previously conducted several demonstrations of the E-Cat and the publicly revealed results have done little to convince the skeptics but have driven the “Believers” into a frenzy of support, accusations of cover-ups by “The Man”, and endless hyping of other energy generating solutions.

The skeptics fall into two camps: Those who flatly don’t believe that Rossi’s E-Cat could ever work at all, and those who take a rather more objective stance and, whether they are hopeful of a positive outcome or not, are deferring judgment until convincing results are produced.

I would include myself in the latter: I really hope the E-Cat works as claimed but I want to see proof; real, verifiable, scientifically valid proof.

Many of those who argue that the E-Cat is flat out impossible and that the whole thing is a mistake at best or a fraud at worst are serious scientists and, you have to admit, they have a point; how could something like the E-Cat work in defiance of known science?

Even so, to be completely dismissive of Rossi’s claims would seem to be foolish as it is one thing to *believe* something is false based on your assumptions and quite another to be able to *prove* beyond a reasonable doubt that it is false.

While the hard core skeptics might be erring in one direction, the Believers are erring in a completely opposite way. Despite a lack of solid evidence and based on the slim, unverifiable test data from the E-Cat trials revealed to date, they still just believe. They post in blogs, in forums, and on Web sites long and often impassioned arguments based on their interpretations of physics, quantum mechanics, chemistry, string theory, numerology, and maybe even the divination of goat entrails. I find most of these arguments impossible to understand let alone refute because unless you really are a real physicist or chemist (or goat entrails reader) the “proofs” are usually impenetrable jungles of mathematics (or entrails).

A subgroup of the Believers which I shall call the “Suppresists”, appear to be firmly convinced that there is a conspiracy by commercial interests and or the government to prevent any device that upsets the energy economy status quo from being developed and made public. There is, of course, no objective, verifiable foundation to these claims but that doesn’t seem get in the way of the “Suppresists” … disagree with them and you must be either ignorant or in the pay of “The Man.”

The other sub-group I alluded to is the “It Has Already Been Solved” lobby. These people are convinced that company X or inventor Y has cracked the world energy problem and often argue vehemently that whatever Rossi is doing has already been done. They have sent me to Web sites where obscure companies show often fairly polished presentations of how their systems work and, in some cases, videos of supposedly working prototypes. Of course, there’s never anything you can buy or, for that matter, any third party scientifically valid test results but that doesn’t stop the “It Has Already Been Solved” lobby. They just believe.

From the way they argue I’d guess that many of the Believers probably also wear tin-foil hats. Some of the messages I’ve received from people who appear to be in this group are astounding not just for their lack of basic grammar but for their inability to express coherent thought.

So, before we look at the results of the E-Cat test on the 28th, what of Rossi and the E-Cat? Why has he been so cagey and secretive about the E-Cat and not permitted a reputable third party to conduct an objective performance test? Well, there appear to be two plausible explanations.

The first is that Rossi is honestly mistaken and he just believes the E-Cat works and produces excess energy when, in fact, it doesn’t. This is something that has happened before (Pons and Fleischmann appear to have been similarly mistaken) but it’s hard to believe as Rossi has been collaborating with a well-credentialed physicist and emeritus professor from Bologna University, Sergio Focardi. A failure of this kind would be a sad and unfortunate conclusion for all concerned as they would be discredited and reviled.

The other explanation is that the whole thing is a fraud and that the E-Cat doesn’t work at all. This too is hard to swallow because there would be no obvious upside. What benefit could either Rossi or Focardi hope to gain?

Sure, there may be some money involved but I doubt whether it would be a large enough amount to justify what would be an usually elaborate and public hoax and whoever the funds came from would, almost certainly, start legal proceedings (if not retain the services of a “mechanic”).

As with the case of the E-Cat being a mistake, the end result of it being a scam would also result in Rossi and Focardi being discredited and reviled. So unless Rossi has also discovered a way to vanish with the cash, the E-Cat being a fraud seems as unlikely as it being a mistake.

But here’s what I find so odd about Rossi and his project: If the E-Cat works and Rossi is just being cagey to maximize the financial benefits, he’s going about getting rich completely the wrong way. A working CF system (or, if you prefer, LENR system) would be one of most valuable, if not the most valuable, inventions in the history of mankind.

Quite inexplicably, Rossi has apparently choosen to go it alone and, it has been reported, has even sold his home to finance development of the E-Cat! This makes no sense. Rossi could have approached Bill Gates or Paul Allen or Warren Buffett or any of thousands of wealthy individuals and institutions and if the device could be proven to work, he would have been given a blank check! Should that not have been enough all he’d have to do is license the system at, say, $1 per year per kilowatt he’d become the richest person ever within a few years.

So, if Rossi isn’t in it for the money, then what else could he be in it for? If his goal was the betterment of mankind, he’s going about it in a very strange way. If it’s for fame and glory, his current way of promoting the E-Cat makes no sense.

Whatever rationale Rossi has for the way he’s developed, promoted, and presented the E-Cat is a complete mystery so we’ll just have to wait to see how the whole drama plays out.

Post Your Comment

Post Your Reply

Forbes writers have the ability to call out member comments they find particularly interesting. Called-out comments are highlighted across the Forbes network. You'll be notified if your comment is called out.

Comments

Rothwell wrote: “That is incorrect. All of the peer-reviewed publications were correct, except the original one. None of them reported a replication. They reported failed attempts at replication. Please see F. Franks, “Polywater” (MIT Press, 1981).”

It doesn’t seem plausible that 450 papers would get published, all failing to replicate the claims. And it’s not consistent with your reference either. Here’s a quote from it: “The Polywater seminal papers include an initial group of four papers by Soviet scientists N.N. Fedyakin and B.V. Deryagin that experienced delayed recognition due to being published in non-English language (Russian) journals during the Cold War era of American–Soviet political rivalries. Only when the fourth paper was published by a group of American scientists (LIPPENCOTT et al., 1969) confirming the discovery of Polywater did the original Russian papers began to receive increased notice and the period of epidemic growth began (FRANKS, 1981).”

Note the words “confirming the discovery”. So that makes at least 4 seminal papers.

Here’s a quote from Bauer in 2002, who cites Franks: “… scientists all over the world reported the preparation and investigation of polywater; indeed the very name is owing to a prominent American spectroscopist, Ellis Lippincott. The renowned British physicist J.D. Bernal called anomalous water “the most important physical-chemical discovery of this century” (Franks 1981, p. 49). Polywater was discussed at several of the prestigious annual Gordon Research Conferences (Franks 1981, p. 124).” They don’t run Gordon conferences to talk about failed replications.

But you just have to scan the titles of the polywater papers to know your claim is nonsense. Here’s 4 in sequence from the Garfield library:

FORMATION OF DROPLETS OF ANOMALOUS WATER ON A FLAT QUARTZ SURFACE

MEASUREMENT OF DENSITY OF STRUCTURALLY MODIFIED WATER DROPS

REFRACTION INDEX OF STRUCTURALLY MODIFIED WATER AS MEASURED BY CAPILLARY MICROMETHOD

APPARATUS FOR STUDYING FORMATION OF STRUCTURALLY MODIFIED STATE OF LIQUIDS

So if they’re measuring the properties of polywater, they must have claimed to have replicated it.

Rothwell: “There are no examples in the history of experimental science in which hundreds or even dozens of papers were published which were all subsequently shown to be wrong.”

Yes. There are. Polywater and N-rays are both examples.

But cold fusion is not an experimental result as such. It is a theory to explain a lot of erratic calorimetry results. And I already gave the example of ether as a theory used to explain 100 years of experimental results in the 19th century. Here’s Lord Kelvin in 1891: “The luminiferous ether, that is the only substance we are confident of in dynamics… One thing we are sure of, and that is the reality and substantiality of the luminiferous ether.” But the current dogma has dispensed with it, and the 19th century scientists are now regarded to have been wrong about ether; every single one of them.

Rothwell: “If this could happen, the scientific method would not work.”

Rothwell: “For example, using instruments that can measure 0.01 W with confidence, researchers have measured 5 to 20 W, with no input power. In some cases the heat continued at these high power levels for days.”

So they claim. And they also claim 70 % reproducibility. Whether or not Duncan could tease that information out of Dardik’s data, those results (from 2004) are not believable, because if true, they would have taken the electrode that produces the heat with no input, and put it into an isolated thermos (inside its own tube if the electrolyte was critical), and watch the temperature climb. That would have made good television for 60 minutes, but instead they showed an impossibly complicated labyrinth of wires and conduits, and showed Duncan making calculations in a notebook to demonstrate heat.

But not only could Dardik not do the above, but since 2004, he has not come close to that level of power without input. And still they claim 70% reproducibility. It is really sloppy work, which is probably why it has not been published under peer review.

Rothwell: “To take another example, tritium was measured at BARC at millions of times background, which is a very high signal to noise ratio. Tritium was confirmed at over a hundred other laboratories.”

That was a few weeks after the P&F announcement, and no one has ever seen levels like that since. The claimed tritium levels vary by some 10 orders of magnitude and are never enough to account for the claimed heat.

Cude wrote: “It doesn’t seem plausible that 450 papers would get published, all failing to replicate the claims. And it’s not consistent with your reference either. . . .”

I suggest you read the book, rather than speculating about what it says.

There were no replications of polywater. One lab briefly thought they had replicated, but they soon retracted. There was a great deal of theoretical speculation about what how polywater might exist. Several papers describing failed replications. There were some in cold fusion too, but they are far outnumbered by reports of successful replications. In the end, several polywater papers described artifacts that could explain the results. No such papers have been published in cold fusion.

This research was fruitful in many ways. It improved the state of the art in detection. One researcher described polywater research as “scientifically the most interesting chapter” in her career (p. 155).

Cude wrote: “I don’t think you [Rothwell] know the first thing about the scientific method.”

I am not the issue here. This is not about me. Roughly 2,000 professional scientists have observed cold fusion, and they have written roughly 3,000 papers. They do know the scientific method, even if I do not. Cude should address what they claim, not his opinion of my description of what they say. If Cude can give valid technical reasons to call their work into question, he should publish a paper. He has not done that. He offers opinion after opinion and a smokescreen of vague characterizations such as “marginal” or “flaky.” He does not address the technical issues or make quantitative statements. Most of his assertions cannot be tested or falsified, and those that can are contradicted by the experimental data.

I will let Cude have the last word on this, but let me close by once again urging everyone to read original sources from authoritative, peer-reviewed journals. Do not depend on a self-appointed expert such as Cude who has never published anything, and who has not addressed a single technical issue. The conventional, traditional methods of doing science are best. Look at confirmed, replicated facts. Read reports by experts who sign their papers and list the name of their university. You can read their other papers to see if they know what they are doing. Do not accept unfounded bluster from anonymous Internet trolls such as Cude.

Rothwell wrote: “I suggest you read the book, rather than speculating about what it says.”

I didn’t speculate. I quoted. And the quotes contradict you. So did the titles I listed. Going to the sources is better in any case, and if you don’t like the titles, how about some abstracts. I can’t give abstracts from the titles I used, because they are from russian (soviet) journals, but a little further down the list, there are many similar titles in English journals. Here are abstracts from 5 (more) of them, all with different authors:

Abstract: In the presence of water, the resonance of the strongly hydrogen-bonded protons characteristic of polywater appears at 5 ppm lower applied magnetic field than water. Polywater made by a new method confirms the IR spectrum reported originally.

Abstract: With the aid of a time-average computer, the proton magnetic resonance spectrum of anomalous water (polywater) is obtained. The spectrum consists of a single broad resonance shifted approximately 300 Hz down-field from the resonance of ordinary water.

From the text: Samples of polywater, prepared in the manner described by Lippincott (2) in capillaries of …

Abstract: The refractive indices of polywater columns in glass capillaries have been rapidly and accurately measured with an interference microscope. Polywater has been detected by this method in both quartz and Vycor glass capillaries…

4. Middlehu. J Mv; Fisher Lr; A New Polywater; Nature 227(1970)57

Abstract: We have made a form of polywater (which we shall call fluorite polywater) with an infrared spectrum similar to that observed by Lippincott et al. [4] but with the frequencies of the peaks somewhat displaced…

Abstract: An experimental method for the preparation of anomalous water and its in volatile residue “polywater” in large glass tubes is described. […] In contrast to previously reported results, *every tube*, up to the largest explored (23-mm id), *successfully produces material* [emphasis in original]. The material thus prepared has an IR spectrum similar to that reported of “polywater” …

Summary and Conclusions: The present data indicate that the erratic nature of the “polywater” phenomenon may be overcome by use of large flamed and sealed glass tubes…

There are many more, but that should be enough to make the point. Many different groups in dozens of papers reported not only the preparation of polywater, but measurement of its properties, variations in the material, and in the methods of preparation. And look at the journals they published in: Science and Nature and JPC, but also Phys Rev and JACS and so on — journals cold fusion can only dream about appearing in. So not only were a lot of people claiming a bogus phenomenon, but it was considered respectable among a large fraction of mainstream science. And still it was wrong. It wasn’t that the specific measurements were wrong, but the controls on impurities were not as good as they thought, and the interpretations of the effects were wrong.

Like cold fusion, there were also many papers on theory, and several tentative theories that were claimed to be consistent with a new polymeric form of water. In 1970, the papers started coming out suggesting that the properties were simply caused by impurities.

Of course, you can say *now*, since we know polywater is bogus, that none of them actually observed polywater, but then, in the view of most scientists, none of the cold fusion researchers have actually observed cold fusion either; they just think they have. In the unlikely event that an experiment ever convinces believers that CF is bogus, then the retractions will come from there too.

Rothwell: “Roughly 2,000 professional scientists have observed cold fusion, and they have written roughly 3,000 papers.”

They have *claimed* to observe cold fusion, and the 2000 is an author count; how professional they are is not obvious. Most of the 3000 papers are not refereed, and it is interesting that in the 2 examples you chose to represent cold fusion, neither were published under peer-review. And the tritium results are from 1989; a perfect illustration of the complete lack of progress in the field.

Rothwell: “He offers opinion after opinion and a smokescreen of vague characterizations such as “marginal” or “flaky.” :

I’m not the only one to consider the quality of cold fusion papers as sub-par. In Nagel’s 2009 review of the ICCF conference, he writes: “there is a significant need for better documentation of experiments. Al Katrib reviewed over 300 experimental papers, most of which presented what was done and found in electrochemical heat measurements. The number of papers that provide all relevant information is disappointingly small.” He proceeds to lecture the researchers on the basics they should have learned as undergraduates. And Nagel is a CF advocate! The 2004 DOE panel was also critical of the quality: “Many reviewers noted that poor experiment design, documentation, background control and other similar issues hampered the understanding and interpretation of the results presented.”

Rothwell: “He does not address the technical issues or make quantitative statements.”

Detailed technical analysis of the poorly documented cold fusion experiments would be a full time job for several people, and it’s a mug’s game. And the problem with accepting proof-of-principle is that detailed analysis is necessary. The claimed effects (like the ones you cited, or Rossi’s) are not subtle, and the attitude of most scientists is that if they were valid, much simpler demonstrations could be designed, especially after 2 decades. Demonstrations that would not require any expertise or analysis should be possible. An isolated device that stays warmer than its surroundings, or heats up, for a sufficiently long time period would be hard to dispute. Rossi’s claims especially, if valid, could be demonstrated very easily to anyone, if he were to allow it. Of course, if they are not valid, that would also become clear by the same demo, if he allowed it. Which is probably why he doesn’t.

With the possible exception that I probably fall somewhere loosely in your Giant Conspiracy To Maintain the Status Quo group somewhere out on the peripheral boundaries. There is as you point out a LOT of money and political control potentially involved. Wars have been fought all through history on far less basis. Watching out for a “Mechanic” seems like a very prudent course of action to me. I don’t really believe there is some clandestine committee having secret meetings in some SMERSH type headquarters buried deep under the Alps or something…………………………..still………………………007 hasn’t had much to do since the Cold War ended.

Hummmmm,…………………..maybe I need to take up writing fiction. I have always liked James Bond…………………………and it would be something to occupy my time while I’m waiting for the next chapter of ECat to unfold.

It’s good to see level-headed discussion of the E-Cat in a publication as influential as Forbes. I can understand Mark Gibbs’ hesitancy in either embracing or dismissing the E-Cat as a new form of energy technology.

However, I’d like to think that there believers in Rossi’s claims who don’t all fit in the categories of people who “just believe” with no good reason.

I think that despite questions that are still unanswered, there is plenty of evidence out there to lead people to come to a positive conclusion about the E-Cat. I have recently posted “A Case for Believing Rossi” at http://www.e-catworld.com giving some of the reasons why I think he has what he claims.

In answer to your question as to why scientists would ignore such a development is that they are not really scientists. The vast majority of people working as physicists are not scientists as much are they are priests. While these people may be geniuses they do not operate at the genius level for fear of failure. So rather than run the risk of failure and the derision of their piers they take the safe route and only play within the beautiful castle they have created for themselves and to never look outside at evidence of something strange and different. Believe me I have the greatest respect for their ability with mathematics and physics but they have the mindset of priests as they are unwilling to look at the evidence. Some very brave few of them are actual scientists and have actually looked at this and are working in the field. Unfortunately Pons and Fleishman messed things up with their announcement in the press rather via a pier review process. They sent thousands of “scientists” off on what appeared to those people to be a wild goose chase that led to their failure. Failure is the thing geniuses fear the most. That is why most do not produce anything that is truly genius. People need to accept the idea that we must fail to succeed and so too does the “science” community.

Zed——-” While these people may be geniuses they do not operate at the genius level for fear of failure. So rather than run the risk of failure and the derision of their piers they take the safe route and only play within the beautiful castle they have created for themselves and to never look outside at evidence of something strange and different.”——-

Zed, not to pick on you, but I was struck by the mental image your small typo gave me. (piers—peers)

It gave me a mental image of a great sailing ship (Rossi and all the other LENR researchers) tied up at dock with heavy ropes(reviews, ideas, concepts, judgements) to piers(peers).

You have to have rope to rig the masts and make the ship sail the high seas—-but ropes can also tie the ship up to piers.

This just isn’t true. Scientists crave the opportunity to find something contrary, something revolutionary, something disruptive. Those are the sorts of discoveries that win acclaim and honor. Fame and glory does not come to scientists who make obscure, incremental progress, but to those who shake the world. That’s why so many physicists from the first decades of the 20th century have household names. It was a time of revolutionary progress in physics.

When accelerator physicists apply for major funding for big experiments, they have to justify it by showing that it extends physics. “Physics outside the standard model” is the buzz word.

The CF debacle itself proves the point. When Pons and Fleischmann made their announcement, scientists all over the world dropped what they were doing, and started doing electrolysis with heavy water and palladium. The claims seemed extraordinary, but P&F had good reputations, and so everyone suspended disbelief, rolled up their sleeves, and got busy. Everyone wanted it to be true, and everyone wanted to be a part of it. No one wanted to be left behind. Unfortunately, the results didn’t stand up to scrutiny, and the realistic skepticism soon returned.